Michigan Indian

Little River Band Ottawa Passes Resolution in Support of Idle No More

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

For Immediate Release

LRBOI Supports First Nations Treaty Rights and ‘Idle No More’ (resolution: LRB — Idle No More)
(1.10.13Manistee, MI) The Tribal Council of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians has adopted a resolution of international consequence supporting the ‘Idle No More’ movement, as they join with other Tribal Nations and (Canadian) First Nations in calling upon Prime Minister Harper to meet with Chief Spence immediately.
Council Speaker Steve Parsons said that, “We are joining our sister tribes in requesting consultation regarding the Canadian governments recent action passing a law that effectively ends First Nations Treaties and ends protections over 2 million waterways and lakes in Canada.”
On 11 December 2012, Chief Theresa Spence declared a hunger strike intended to focus public attention on First Nations issues, to support the Idle No More indigenous rights movement, and to highlight concerns about the government’s omnibus bill C-45.
The LRBOI Tribal Council also found that enactment of Bill C-45 by the Canadian government diminishes the sovereign authority of First Nations by diminishing protection for sacred lands and waterways in and around First Nations’ lands; lands and waterways that are shared with their tribal Clan Relatives around the Great Lakes.
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians are signatories to a Great Lakes Water Accord with Great Lakes Basin Native Nations in the US; states bordering the Great Lakes as well as the First Nations of Canada. The accord was signed in December of 2004, when the Tribe agreed to support First Nations on the issues presented with the Idle No More Movement.

Michigan Indian Legal Services Fall 2012 Newsletter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Featuring a profile if MSU Law ‘2011 grad Elaine Barr, our 2011-12 Center Fellow!

MILS_Newsletter_Fall_2012

“Faith in Paper,” First Spring Speakers Event on January 15th at 2pm

Kate Fort1 Comment

No registration necessary. We hope to see you here:

13-I&P-33 ILPC Spring Speaker Series_JAN

MILS Fundraiser, January 25th

Kate Fort

A Benefit for Michigan Indian Legal Services

Friday, January 25th 5:30pm-9:00pm

A benefit/fundraiser for MILS. Tickets are $50.00 per person and include 2 drinks and 1 raffle ticket. Doors open at 5:30p.m., welcome at 6:00p.m. followed by hors d’oeuvres. Tickets MUST be purchased in advance. For tickets contact MILS, any of their fantastic attorneys, or Angela Sherigan.

Sponsorship opportunities still available! Contact Angela Sherigan, 586-822-4220 for more information.

SCOTUSBlog: Two Indian Law Petitions to Watch for this Week’s Conference

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here:

Issue: (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
Issue: (1) Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to enjoin activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., but takes place outside of Indian lands; and (2) whether tribal sovereign immunity bars a state from suing in federal court to enjoin a tribe from violating IGRA outside of Indian lands.

 

Profile of Aaron Payment — Sault Tribe Chair

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Second Update in Michigan’s Suit against Proposed Sault Tribe Lansing Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

Michigan Reply in Support of Motion for PI

Michigan Response to SSM Motion to Dismiss

Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians filings:

2012-12-21 Amicus Brief with Exs.

2012-12-21 Memorandum in supportof Motion to file an amicus brief

2012-12-21 Motion to file an amicus brief

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe filings:

motionforleavetofile&brief

sagchipamicus

exhibitssagchip

Previous materials are here (complaint and motion for PI) and here (Sault Tribe’s responsive pleadings).

Strange Article on Michigan Casinos and Fiscal Cliff

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here, h/t Pechanga.

The lede:

Michigan’s casino industry could face some problems if the nation falls off the ‘fiscal cliff’ at the end of the year.

The meat:

Jake Miklocjik is an analyst who closely follows the casino industry in Michigan.   He says the state’s two dozen casinos should fare better than those in Las Vegas, since the Michigan casinos are closer to their core clientele.

“By itself, when I look down through the fiscal cliff issues…I don’t really see a big impact on Michigan casinos,” says Miklocjik.

Miklocjik says Michigan’s casinos face more threats from other forms of gambling than they do from the fiscal cliff.

Huh?

Judicial Vacancies, Eastern District of Michigan

Kate Fort

Applications through either Sen. Stabenow or Sen. Levin ‘s office.

Michigan COA Issues Conditional Reversal in ICWA Notice Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion:

Matter of Vanostran

An excerpt:

Given the interests protected by ICWA, the potentially high costs of erroneously concluding that notice need not be sent, and the relatively low burden of erring in favor of requiring notice, the Supreme Court found “the standard for triggering the notice requirement of 25 USC 1912(a) must be a cautionary one,” and held that sufficiently reliable information of virtually any criteria on which tribal membership might be based suffices to trigger the notice requirement. Morris, 491 Mich at 88-89. The transcript of the November 29, 2004, hearing was not provided on appeal for review of the evidence indicating Indian heritage, but the trial court deemed the evidence “weakly strong” and felt it warranted provision of ICWA notice. On appeal, the parties agree that the lower court record does not show notice was provided in 2004. Given the fact that the notice requirement was triggered in 2004, it is unnecessary to decide whether respondent mother’s comments during the 2012 termination hearing were  also sufficient to require notice. If her comments were not sufficient, or even if she denied SKV’s Indian heritage, the trigger occurred in 2004, and a parent cannot waive the child’s status. Morris, 491 Mich at 111.